Последняя трапеза Будды, по Махапариниббана сутте и комментариям 2

Добро пожаловать, Гость. Пожалуйста, войдите или зарегистрируйтесь.

Имя пользователя: Пароль:

Автор Тема: Последняя трапеза Будды, по Махапариниббана сутте и комментариям  (Прочитано 7535 раз)

0 Пользователей и 1 Гость просматривают эту тему.

Ассаджи

  • Администратор
  • Участник
  • Онлайн Онлайн
  • Сообщений: 6610

Вот как это комментирует Тхера Нагасена, отвечая на вопросы царя Милинды:
«…Блаженный сказал: «Есть две трапезы, Ананда, равные величием. Одинаковы их плоды, одинаково их завершение. Они других трапез и премного плодотворнее, и премного превосходнее». У той последней трапезы много достоинств, немало преимуществ. Боги знали, государь, что это последняя трапеза Блаженного; на сердце у них тогда было радостно и светло; блюдо из свинины, (приготовленное Чундой), они окропили небесным питательным соком. Было оно хорошо и легко усвояемым, вкусным, приятным, полезным для (желудочного) огня. Оно не вызвало у Блаженного, государь, никакого нового недуга. Но, государь, Блаженный и так уже был телом немощен, в нём иссякла жизненная сила, а (от еды) его старый недуг ещё больше обострился. Ведь если, государь, в костёр, который и так уже горит, подбавить ещё топлива, то он разгорится ещё больше. Вот точно так же, государь, Блаженный и так уже был телом немощен, в нём иссякла жизненная сила, а (от еды) старый его недуг ещё больше обострился. Или иначе, государь: если в реку, которая и так уже течёт, прольётся из большой тучи дождь, то она вздуется и станет ещё полноводнее. Вот точно так же, государь, Блаженный и так уже был телом немощен, в нём иссякла жизненная сила, а (от еды) старый его недуг ещё больше обострился. Или иначе, государь: если кто и так уже толстопузый, а потом ещё раз наестся, то пузо у него выпятится ещё больше. Вот точно так же, государь, Блаженный и так уже был немощен, в нём иссякла жизненная сила, а (от еды) старый его недуг ещё больше обострился. Не было, государь, в том угощении ничего дурного, невозможно в нём усмотреть ничего дурного»

Милиндапаньха. Кн.3 вопр. 6(24)
« Последнее редактирование: 04 Июль 2008 21:40 от Ассаджи »
Записан

Ассаджи

  • Администратор
  • Участник
  • Онлайн Онлайн
  • Сообщений: 6610

Last Meal of the Gotama Buddha, Mushroom or Pork?

The term `sukara-maddava' appears in the whole part of Tipitaka (Pali) twelve times.26 It is set forth six times in Mahaparinibbana Sutta, Digha Nikaya, Sutta Pitaka, and on the other part it is set forth in Cunda Sutta, Udana, Khuddaka Nikaya, Sutta Pitaka. These two sources refer to the same event, namely that: the householder Cunda --a rich goldsmith-- invited and served the food in the form of sukara-maddava to the Gotama Buddha. This dish of food became the last meal of the Gotama Buddha before His Absolute Release (Mahaparinibbana).

Recently, there is apparently an effort to translate the term sukara-maddava into "a kind of mushroom liked by pigs" or "a kind of mushroom that grows in ground trodden under foot by swine" or "a kind of mushroom growing at the places where pigs usually stay".27 It is not known definitely who made this translation appear for the first time, but it is clear that this translation is fully supported by the vegetarian Buddhists. From the former times, they have really done their utmost in various ways to prove that the Gotama Buddha was a vegetarian abstaining from any food made of meat. The translation should be examined more profoundly.

In Sumangalavilasini --the book of commentary on Mahavagga, Digha Nikaya--, Buddhaghosa Thera 28 wrote that what is called sukara-maddava is "meat of pig of prime species, which is in moderate age --not too young but not too old--, which is tender, which is available in the market for public consumption (pavatta-mamsa)." This opinion is strongly supported by Dhammapala Thera, writer of Paramatthadipani --the commentary book of Udana, Khuddaka Nikaya-- saying that in Maha-atthakatha 29 there is also such a statement. In addition, Buddhadatta Thera who wrote Mathuratthavilasini --a book of commentary on Buddhavamsa, Khuddaka Nikaya-- also stated that one of the thirty natural points for each Sammasambuddha is: His last meal before Final Release is `animal meat' (parinibbanadivase mamsarasabhojanam). In the Tipitaka Scripture in Thai language --published by Mahamakut-rajavidyalay--, and in Burmese language (and its translation in English) --published by Burma Pitaka Association--, the term sukara-maddava is translated into "tender pork".30

If it is examined according to its derivation of word, the validity of the translation should not be doubted anymore. The term sukara-maddava is derived from two words, namely: `sukara' and `maddava'. In "A Dictionary of the Pali Language" compiled by Robert Caesar Childers, and in "Pali Glossary" compiled by Dines Anderson, as well as in "Concise Pali-English Dictionary" compiled by Ven. A.P. Buddhadatta, the noun sukara is translated into "a pig, a hog, a boar", whereas the adjective maddava is translated into "flaccid, mildness, softness". Thus, based on the derivation of word, the term sukara-maddava actually bears no relation to "mushroom" or any kind of fungus.

In the meantime, it should be understood that householder Cunda was a devote 31 who knew that the Gotama Buddha was in poor health condition. He cooked intentionally a special food, sukara-maddava, with the expectation that His health would be improved. It would be very risky if the served food was a kind of food mixed with `mushroom' --since a very long time ago known by the people as a kind of plant which `may be' poisonous 32 --at least, according to the nutritionists, which may cause weakness and intoxication. Moreover, mushroom is a food of a very low nutrient content and even it may be said to have insignificant nutritive value.33 In other words, mushroom are not any more nourishing than juicy cabbage leaves. Therefore, it is very improper to expect that such a food will support the health. It should also be known that the Absolute Extinction of the Gotama Buddha was actually not caused by sukara-maddava served by the householder Cunda --as misconstrued by many persons--; but it was because of the extreme weakness of His body, and because of the period of life he had to live having been exhausted. Three months before, He determined to terminate His life when it was full moon in the month of Vesakha. In the event presently recorded in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta and the Cunda Sutta, the Gotama Buddha had never said that sukara-maddava served by the householder Cunda contained killing poison.34 He only said that in this world, no one, man, brahmin, ascetic, god, mara or brahma would be able to `digest' (jirapeti) the dish of food, except himself. Nagasena Thera and Buddhaghosa Thera commented that when the sukara-maddava was being cooked, many gods put heavenly `oja' (nutriments) in a large quantity into it, thinking that it was the last meal of the Gotama Buddha. Seeing the event, the Gotama Buddha told the householder Cunda not to offer the sukara-maddava containing the heavenly `oja' to the monks who accompanied Him, which might cause `overdose'. The gods put the heavenly `oja' in the dose especially allocated to the Gotama Buddha. Thus, the translation of the term sukara-maddava into `mushroom' with the presumption that the Absolute Extinction of the Gotama Buddha was caused by the `poison' contained in the food, is really not in conformity with the fact.

In any way, it is actually not so important and should not be used as material of debate by the Buddhists. Whether sukara-maddava is really mushroom or not, it cannot be used as the ground or reason to support the Vegetarianism. The kind of food ever eaten by the Gotama Buddha certainly cannot be concluded only by seeing His `last meal'. Several sources in the Tipitaka Scripture clearly indicate how the Gotama Buddha had His own attitude towards the Vegetarianism, and applicable to His disciples.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

26 This term also appears in the "Milinda Panha" --a Pali scripture which tells about the debate between King Milinda and the Nagasena Thera.

27 In Mahaparinibbana Sutta and Milinda Panha, Prof. Rhys Davids translated this term as `dried flesh of the boar' and `tender pork'. But, I.B. Horner, in her translation of Milinda Panha, translated this term as `truffle'.

28 He was a famous commentator on several parts of the Tipitaka (Pali) Scripture living about the fifth century A.D..

29 An eldest and most important book of commentary (on Tipitaka Pali) taken to Ceylon by Milinda Thera, son of King Asoka.

30 In the Singhalese (Ceylon) Tipitaka, this term is maintained in the original form, not translated.

31 Commentator said that he attained the stage of Sotapanna, one who has entered the stream of Path (to the Real Emancipation/Nibbana).

32 In "The World Book Encyclopedia", it is written that only botanists who are quite accurate will be able to differentiate between poisonous fungus and unpoisonous fungus. It is due to the fact that edible mushrooms sometimes have similar type, odor, and colour to those of toadstool.

33 Almost all kinds of mushroom are composed of: more than 90 per cent of water, less than three per cent of protein, less than five per cent of carbohydrate, less than one per cent of fat, and about one per cent of mineral salt as well as vitamin.

34 Supposing it contained poison, caused disease or caused His Absolute Extinction, the dish of food would certainly not be declared as an offering which would grant a very great merit, equivalent to the offering served by Sujata before the attaintment of His Supreme Enlightenment.
Записан

Ассаджи

  • Администратор
  • Участник
  • Онлайн Онлайн
  • Сообщений: 6610

BUDDHISM AND VEGETARIANISM by Ashin Nandamalabhivamsa

To the readers

This articel was formerly prepared as a dissertation paper to be submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Masteer in Research to the University of Kelaniya in Srilanka. Highlighted here is the Buddhist Perspective on Vegetarianism with reference to Pali Texts.
Nowadays , all over the world, there appear many people who follow the practice of Vegetarianism yet found out to hold different views. Some become vegetarian on account of their health situations whereas for most people , such practice is based in their religious belief.#In this context, there are may be different ideas how they follow this practice. How people make a decision of consuming food as regards the life of the animals ? Basically , vegetarians can be classified into different categories. As an vegetarian, some consume egg but not milk whereas some avoid eating egg but drink milk. Still some people abstain from partaking any by- products of animas such as milk, egg, etc.but love to use materials made of animal skin , etc. . In case of some, they refrain from either consuming or using any products of animals.
According to Theravada Buddhism , its adherents are neither encouraged nor insited to be vegetarian. Since not a compilsory practice, neither vegetarians are praised nor non-vegetarians to be blamed. The purpose of consuming food in Buddhism is to substain one’s life and body while partaking any kind of food which should be blameless and to remove craving for food.
As Buddhism throws light on Majjhimapatipada (Middle Way) as its one and only practice to attain final liberation, it wisely advises its adherents to avoid extremes (anta).
The Omniscient Buddha expounded His followers to avoid any food which is unholesome; the food which is wholesome but blameworthy; to refrain from ordering in killing animals as he accumulates demerit and finally to remove wrong views that is blameworthy to be non-vegetarian, etc..
This article attempts to convey the original essence of Buddha’s teaching as regards Vegetarianism. May the readers realize the true perspective of being a good Vegetarian.

Buddhism and Vegetarianism

Buddhism neither condemns nor praises the practice of vegetarianism. It never says practicing vegetarianism is right or wrong. It only says that you should have moderation in food , vegetable or meat (bhojane mattannuta).
Food is necessary for all living beings to live long. Without food, beings are unable to survive. The Buddha says, “all beings sustain through nutriment or cause (sabbe satta aharatthitika). To eat is to live long.
Before the emergence of Buddhism there were some Brahmanas and recluses who believed in purity of mental defilements through the practice of austerity in food. They ate only rice or vegetables , very small in quantity. They would stay without food very often. They believed that through this way, which was a sort of self-mortification, purification could be achieved.
The Buddha says : “Oh Sariputta, there are some Samanas and Brahmanas who hold such assertion and view of purity through nutriment (Aharena suddhi). They say thus:’ We live on mugga bean (green gram). We live on sesame. We live on rice.’ (Mahasihanada Sutta:MN). The Buddha rejects the concept of purification through nutriment.
Some religious thinkers assumed vegetarianism as a sort of asceticism. They strictly practise vegetarianism, and abstain from eating fish and meat throughout all their lives. The Buddha says they are the persons who torture themselves and practice self-tortured actions (attantapo, attaparitapana nuyogam anuyutto).
The Buddha does not assume vegetarianism as a morality. The practice of vegetarianism is not even a part of morality (sila) which is a factor of the Eightfold Noble Path.
The Buddha encourages His disciples to practice Dhutangas which are not compulsory but optional. Dhutanga literally means a factor of destruction of mental impurities. The practice of vegetarianism is not a sort of Dhutangas. It is not an important factor for cessation of suffering as well. Therefore the Buddha did not exhort His disciples to practice vegetarianism. But He advised them to have moderation in eating.
During the Buddha’s life time the foods people ate can be traced through Pali Canons. There where five kinds of food mentioned in Pacittiya Pali of Vinaya Pitaka.
“Five kinds of food (Panca bhojanani) are rice (odana), baked rice powder (sattu), boilded flour (kummasa), fish (macca) and meat (mamsa).”
These five kinds of food were commonly used by the people as their daily food and also offered them to monks during the time of the Buddha.
In the 39th rule of the Pacittya, nine kinds of delicious food are mentioned thus: there are delicious foods, namly, foods mixed with ghee or butter (sappi), fresh butter (navanitam), oil (telam), honey (madhu), molasses (phanitam), fish (maccho), meat (mamsam), milk (khiram) and curd (dadhi).
These nine kinds of foods could be found in the rich family’s dining room and they offered these to monks. Buddhist monks were allowed to accept them if lay people offered according to their wish, but they were guilty if they asked lay people for them without having special reason, that is during illness. In a poor family’s kitchen broken rice together with sour gruel (kanajakam balanga dutiyam) can be found. This food may be the poorest food during the Buddha’s lifetime.
This food was generally given to servants and workers in the house of rich people. King Sodhodana, the father of the Buddha, was rich and generous. He gave rice mixed with meat (Sali mamsodana) to his servants and workers as their daily food.
The Buddha saiys: “ O monks, in the other people house broken rice together with sour gruel is given to servants and workers. However in my father’s house rice mixed with meat is given to them (Sukhumala Sutta:AN)”.
Therefore, we have to know that fish and meat were commonly used by the people during the lifetime of the Buddha. The Buddha and His followers had to depend upon the almsgiving. The Buddha Himself ate meat and allowed His diciples to do so if the meat was not specially for them at the source.
We can find some kinds of meat in the Buddha’s bowl. We have some evidence to prove it through Pali Canons.
“On one occasion a lay disciple of the Buddha, Ugga by name, who lived in Vesali, offered alms-giving to the Buddha and the Sangha in his house. Rice and curry and various esculents (khadaiya) were specially arranged. Ugga said:”Lord, this pork curry cok with jujube fruit is so delicious. Do accept it with compassion for me !”
The Buddha accept it (Manapadayi sutta of Anguttara nikaya).
On one occassion, a group of robbers killed a cow for meat in the forest of the blinds (Andhavana) near Jetavana. In the forest an Arahant Bhikkhuni, Uppalavanna by name, stayed under a tree experiencing the bliss of Phala Samapatti. The leader of the robber saw her sitting under a tree and commanded this followers to go by the other way.He hung a package of beef out on a branch of a tree dedicating it to this Bhikkhuni and went away after saying himself that he offered it to any person who found it. Theri Uppalavanna took the package of beef and offered it to the Buddha (Nisaggiypacittiya Pali of Vinaya Pitaka).
On one occasion the Buddha was on His way to Kusinara on His last day. Cunda , the goldsmith of Pava, offered the Buddha the last meal including Sukaramaddava. Sukaramaddava means the flesh of a pig aged one year on sale, not so young, not so old. This kind of pork is soft and rich in nutritive essence. Although this term Sukaramaddava, was given several interpretations, the only meaning above mentioned was accepted by Ven. Buddhaghosa . (Mahaparinibbhana Sutta of Digha nikaya).
Ven. Buddhaghosa mentioned other teacher’s interpretations of Sukaramaddava in his book. Some teachers said that Sukaramaddava is a drink of rice, milk, or milky rice pudding. The other said that it is a sort of tonic. (The Comentary on Mahaparinibbana sutta). Some scholars today who believe in vegetarianism say Sukaramaddava is a sort of mushroom.
We found the meat in the bowl of the Buddha and His followerd, but the Buddha did not grant ten kinds of meat to be eaten.
There are ten kinds of meat , namely human flesh (manussa-mamsa), elephant flesh (hatthi-mamsa), horse flesh (assa-mamsa), dog flesh (sunakha-mamsa), snake flesh (ahi-mamsa), lion flesh (siha-mamsa), tiger flesh (byagga-mamsa), leopard flesh (dipamamsa), bear flesh (acca-mamsa) and hyena or wolf flesh (taracha-amamsa).
Buddhist monks must abstain from taking these ten kinds of meat on account of the special reasons. The reasons given in brief in the Commentary of Vinaya (samanta pasadika) thus: Human flesh should not be eaten because of being one own species. Elephant flesh and horse should not be eaten being the property of a king. Dog flesh and snake flesh should not be eaten being disgusting. Lion flesh, tiger flesh , etc., should not be eaten being harmful.
Regarding the ten kinds of meat, interesting stories are mentioned in the Mahavagga Pali of Vinaya pitaka.

HUMAN FLESH

On one occasion the Buddha stayed at Isipatana near Varanasi. A pious Buddhist lay woman, Suppiya by name, promised a sick monk to offer a kind of meat soup. Unfortunately it was impossible to cook meat soup as that day was not kill-day (maghata samaya). Any flesh on sale could not be bought in the market.
Then Suppiya thought herself, “I have promissed a sick monk to offer a kind of meat soup. But I cannot get any meat in the market today. If I do not send any meat soup, that monk may die or his disease may become worse. In any way, I must offer the meat soup to the monk.”
After that , she entered her bedroom and cut a piece of flesh out from her tigh with a knife. Her husband excalimend, “How wonderful ! What great confidence she has ! there will not be any other thing which she cannot give, if she is able to offer even her own flesh.”
The next day the Buddha went to her home at the invitation of her husband. The Buddha inquired where Suppiya was. After having reported of that event, the Buddha called her to His presence. She was carried immediately. As soon as she saw the Buddha, her wound in the thigh was cured and as good as before, this caused her much surprise and happiness, and she paid homage to the Buddha in great reference.
The sick monk was blamed owing to take to human-flesh soup without making an inquiry. Regarding this event the Buddha admonished His disciples and promulgated a Vinaya rule.
“Oh monks, there are some lay devotees who have great confidence. They dare to offer their own flesh. O monks, human flesh should not be eaten. A monk who eats human flesh must be guilty of Thullaccaya (great offence).
Then the Buddha adviced His desciples not to eat any meat without making inquiry beforehand.
Записан

Ассаджи

  • Администратор
  • Участник
  • Онлайн Онлайн
  • Сообщений: 6610

ELEFANT FLESH AND HORSE FLESH
Once upon a time a kingdom suffered from famine. The king’s elephants and horse died and people ate their meat. They offered those meat to the monks as an alms-giving and monks ate it. Some people condemned the monks for taking the meat of elephant and horse. They said elephants and horses were the property of the king. If the king knew that monks ate the meat, he would be displeased with monks. The Buddha say: “O monks, elephant flesh and horse flesh should not be eaten. Any monk who eats it must be guilty of dukkata (offence of wrong-action)”
DOG FLESH
While the condition of famine arose some people ate dog flesh and offered monks in alms-giving. Some peoplecondemned monks for talking that meat. They said that dog flesh was disgusting. The Buddha says:” O monks, dog flesh should not be eaten. Any monk who eats it must be guilty of Dukkata”.
SNAKE FLESH
On one occasion of famine some people ate snake flesh and offered monks. Some poeple condemned monks as before. The Buddha says:” O monks, snake flesh should not be eaten. Any monk who eats it must be guilty of Dukkata”.
LION FLESH , etc.
During the time of famine some people ate the flesh of lion, tiger, leopard , bear and offered it to the monks.
After taling the meat, the monk went to forest to practise meditation. On account of the smell of the meat they ate., lion, tiger, etc, chased the monks. That event was reported to the Buddha and the Buddha says:” O monks, lion flesh, etc; should not be eaten. Any monk who eats it must be guilty of Dukkata”.
Although the Buddha granted His followers all kinds of meat except the ten sorts of meat, he imposed three restrictions regarding meat. If any monk either saw or heared or even suspected that an animal had been killed specially for him, then the monk should not be accepted. The Buddha together with his followers did not abstain from meat. So, He was condemned by the other religious thinkers very often.
Once upon a time a chief commander fo Vajji, Siha by name was converted to Buddhism. He invited the Buddha and His disciples and offered alms-giving. He prepared rice and curry including meat which was bought from market. Janist monks heared that Siha offered the Buddha rice with meat. They condemned both the Buddha and Siha. They falsely accused: Siha, the Chief Commander, has killed a large animal to offer meat to Samana Gotama and knowing truly that event Samana Gotama has taken the meat. (Siha-Sihasenapi Sutta of Anguttara Nikaya).
According to Jainism eating meat is also guilty. They say one who eats meat inherits a half in demerit of the person who commits the killing of an animal. The killer kills animal because the eater eats meat. Siha was lay devotee of Mahavira before converting to Buddhism.
On one occasion a physician, Jivaka by name, approched the Buddha and reported the news he had heared.
Lord, it was said that animals were killed to offer meat to Samana Gotama. Samana Gotama accepted it knowing that the animal was killed specially for him ! Then Jivaka added:”Lord let me know whether they said are truly or not.”
The Buddha denied the satement and explained “O Jivaka, I declare that any meat should not be eaten by monks owing to three reasons:
Seen personally, heard and suspected thet the preparation of meat is for him:” “O Jivaka, whoever attempts to slaughter an animal to offer meat for me and my disciples, he accumulated much evil through five reasons:
(1) Having the purpose of offering alms-giving, one orders to bring an animal to be slaughtered/killed ?
(2) The animal suffers pain and grief while it is pulled by force; on account of that second reason much evil occurs within him.
(3) The order to slaughter that animal; on account of that third reason much evil occurs within him.
(4) The animal suffers pain and grief while killed; on account of that fourth reason much evil occurs within him.
(5) He makes trouble for me and my disciples by offering an unsuitable food to us; on account of that fifth reason much evil occurs within him.(Jivaka Sutta of Majjhima Nikaya)
The Buddha allowed meat –eating if it is free from three reasons, because to eat meat is not an unwholesome deed, as is the killing of living beings. However, some alien religious thinkers (annatitthiya) believed that one who eats meat comes into inheritance of demerit. The Buddha rejected their statement.
On one occasion Ven. Devadata, who opposed the Buddha, requested:”Lord, let monks not eat fish and meat throughtout their lives; if one commits to eating it, he must be guilty.” The Buddha totally denied this request (Culavagga Pali of Vinaya Pitaka).
Regarding taking meat Amagandha Sutta is very important. This Sutta is mentioned in Sutta Nipata of Khuddaka Nikaya. It was preached firstly by the Lord Buddha named Kassapa and retold by our Lord Buddha.
Once upon a time, a hermit who practised vegetarianism approched the Buddha. He inquired whether the Buddha ate Amagandha or not. The Buddha asked him: “What is the Amagandha ?” “ The Amagandha is meat”, he replied.
“Amagandha” literally means “odour of flesh”. It has the connotation of putridity and repugnant sense of uncleaned. Therefore this hermit used the term “Amagandha” for the word “meat”.
Then the Buddha explained that the meat was not true Amagandha but all mental defilements and all unwholesome deeds were really Amagandha.
The Buddha says:
(1) Taking life, beating, cutting, binding, stealing, lying, fraud deceiving, pretending knowledge, adultery – this is Amagandha and not eating flesh.
(2) When men are unrestrained in sensual pleasures, are greedy in tastes, are associated with impure actions, are of nihilistic view, crooked, obscurantists – this is Amagandha and not eating flesh.
(3) When men are rough and harsh, backbiting, treacherous, without compassion, haughty, ungenerous and not give anything to anyone: that is Amagandha and not eating flesh.
(4) Anger, pride, obstinacy, antagonism, hypocrisy, envy, ostentation, pride of opinion, intercourse with unrighteous – this is Amagandha and not eating flesh.
(5) When men are of bad morals, refuse to pay debts, slanderers, deceitful in their dealings, pretenders, when the vilest of men commit fould deeds – this is Amagandha and not eating flesh.
According to Buddhism, purification of all mental defilements is very important to attain Nibbana. One must attempt to purify one’s mind. The purification of mind can be achieved only through cultivation of good within him. To achieve purification you must establish Sila, Samadhi and Panna within you. Only through morality, concentration and wisdom you are able to achieve the purification of your mind. You can neither be defiled nor purified through eating meat or vegetables.
The Buddha did not exhosrt His followers to become vegetarians or non-vegetarians, but he admonished them to have moderation in food (bhojana mattannuta). Whatever good you eat, vegetables or meat, you must control thirst for taste (rasatanha).
The thirst for taste can be eradicated through developing the perception on repulsiveness dealing with nutriment (ahara patikulasanna) or through consideration of the necessity of food (paccavekkhana). A monk should not take food not for the purpose of joyful playing, not for taking pride in strenght, not for the growth of the parts of body to have charm, not for beautifying but for support and maintanance of the body, for keeping it unharmed , for enabling the practice of moral life (Apannaka Sutta of Anguttara Nikaya).
In putta-mamsupama Sutta of Samyutta Nikaya, the Buddha compared kabalikara hara to one own son’s flesh. Here all ordinary material food, vegetable or meat, is known as kabalikara.
The Buddha says,”Suppose , a married couple who has only one baby boy went to a distant place, crossing the road of kantara. On the way their provision unfortunately ran out. They could not continue their journey without food. They were about to starve to death when a wicked idea occupied their mind. They killed the beloved son, ate the flesh, and crossed over the journey with great sorrow for having killed the beloved son.
The Buddha explained the meaning through question and answer.” O monks, what is your opinion ? Do they eat flesh of the own son for the purpose of playing (davaya) or for taking pride in strenght (madaya) or for the growth of the body (mandanaya) or for beautifying (vibhusanaya) ?” “No Lord. They will not eat it for the purpose of these.” Monks replied. “Do they eat only for the purpose of crossing over the journey ?” “Yes, O Lord”.
According to Puttamamsupama Sutta, you must contemplate on your food as just they contemplate their own son’s flesh. By this way you are able to eraticate the thirst for the taste (rasatanha) of nutriment.
Let us consider the nutriment from the point of the view of the Four Noble Truth. According to Buddhism, nutriment is a material thing and it pertains to the Aggregate of Matter (Rupakkhandha). The Aggregate of Matter is a sort of suffering. Therefore the nutriment is subject to suffering (Dukkha). It is one that should be discerned correctly (parinneyya). It is not a phenomenon that is to be eradicated (na pahatabba). The thirst for taste of nutriment (rasatanha) is the cause of suffering (dukkhasamudaya). It should be eradicated (pahatabba).
The cessation of the thirst for taste of nutriment is the cessation of suffering (Dukkhanirodha). It should be attained (Sacchikatabba). The contemplating nutriment correctly for the perception of repulsiveness in nutriment is the way leading to the cessation of suffering (Dukkha nirodha gamini patipada). It is one that should be developed (Bhavetabba).
According to Buddhism the cessation of suffering is of the most important. It can be attained only through the eradication of the Thirst (tanha). Therefore you must attempt to uproot the Thirst for taste of Nutriment to attain the cessation of suffering. It is Nibbana which is the goal of the Noble Practice. You may be a vegetarian or non-vegetarian, according to your wish. The only attempt you must make is to remove the Thirst for Taste of Nutriment, what you take every day.

http://www.bswa.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=2173&forum=7&post_id=21183
Записан

Ассаджи

  • Администратор
  • Участник
  • Онлайн Онлайн
  • Сообщений: 6610

Комментарий Буддхагхосы:

  Sūkaramaddavanti  nātitaruṇassa  nātijiṇṇassa  ekajeṭṭhakasūkarassa  pavattamaṃsaṃ. Taṃ kira mudu ceva siniddhañca hoti, taṃ paṭiyādāpetvā sādhukaṃ pacāpetvāti attho. Eke bhaṇanti– “sūkaramaddavanti pana mudu-odanassa pañcagorasayūsapācanavidhānassa nāmetaṃ, yathā gavapānaṃ nāma pākanāman”ti. Keci bhaṇanti– “sūkaramaddavaṃ nāma rasāyanavidhi, taṃ pana  rasāyanasatthe āgacchati, taṃ cundena– ‘bhagavato parinibbānaṃ na bhaveyyā’ti rasāyanaṃ  paṭiyattan”ti.  Tattha  pana dvisahassadīpaparivāresu catūsu mahādīpesu devatā ojaṃ pakkhipiṃsu.

Он объясняет "сукара-маддава" как "мясо свиньи" (sūkarassa maṃsaṃ). При этом он упоминает другие мнения.

Так же поступает и Дхаммапала в комментарии к Удане:

“Sūkaramaddavanti sūkarassa mudusiniddhaṃ pavattamaṃsan”ti  mahā-aṭṭhakathāyaṃ  vuttaṃ.  Keci  pana  “sūkaramaddavanti na sūkaramaṃsaṃ, sūkarehi madditavaṃsakaḷīro”ti  vadanti.  Aññe  “sūkarehi madditappadese jātaṃ ahichattakan”ti. Apare pana “sūkaramaddavaṃ nāma ekaṃ rasāyanan”ti bhaṇiṃsu. Tañhi cundo kammāraputto “ajja bhagavā parinibbāyissatī”ti sutvā “appeva nāma naṃ paribhuñjitvā cirataraṃ tiṭṭheyyā”ti satthu cirajīvitukamyatāya adāsīti vadanti.
Записан

Aniezka

  • Участник
  • Оффлайн Оффлайн
  • Сообщений: 7


HUMAN FLESH

On one occasion the Buddha stayed at Isipatana near Varanasi. A pious Buddhist lay woman, Suppiya by name, promised a sick monk to offer a kind of meat soup. Unfortunately it was impossible to cook meat soup as that day was not kill-day (maghata samaya). Any flesh on sale could not be bought in the market.
Then Suppiya thought herself, “I have promissed a sick monk to offer a kind of meat soup. But I cannot get any meat in the market today. If I do not send any meat soup, that monk may die or his disease may become worse. In any way, I must offer the meat soup to the monk.”
After that , she entered her bedroom and cut a piece of flesh out from her tigh with a knife. Her husband excalimend, “How wonderful ! What great confidence she has ! there will not be any other thing which she cannot give, if she is able to offer even her own flesh.”
The next day the Buddha went to her home at the invitation of her husband. The Buddha inquired where Suppiya was. After having reported of that event, the Buddha called her to His presence. She was carried immediately. As soon as she saw the Buddha, her wound in the thigh was cured and as good as before, this caused her much surprise and happiness, and she paid homage to the Buddha in great reference.
The sick monk was blamed owing to take to human-flesh soup without making an inquiry. Regarding this event the Buddha admonished His disciples and promulgated a Vinaya rule.
“Oh monks, there are some lay devotees who have great confidence. They dare to offer their own flesh. O monks, human flesh should not be eaten. A monk who eats human flesh must be guilty of Thullaccaya (great offence).
Then the Buddha adviced His desciples not to eat any meat without making inquiry beforehand.

Ассаджи, у вас случайно нет ссылки на сутру, где упоминается эта история, желательно в другом переводе?
Возникло несколько вопросов.
В частности непонятно, что значит фраза: Then the Buddha adviced His desciples not to eat any meat without making inquiry beforehand.
Any meat означает "любое мясо", а речь до этого шла о человеческом.
Записан

Ассаджи

  • Администратор
  • Участник
  • Онлайн Онлайн
  • Сообщений: 6610

Здравствуйте, Aniezka!

Ассаджи, у вас случайно нет ссылки на сутру, где упоминается эта история, желательно в другом переводе?
Возникло несколько вопросов.
В частности непонятно, что значит фраза: Then the Buddha adviced His desciples not to eat any meat without making inquiry beforehand.
Any meat означает "любое мясо", а речь до этого шла о человеческом.

Это из Винаи, вот тот же отрывок в другом переводе:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/sbe17/sbe17037.htm

Речь идет о том, чтобы не есть никакого мяса (any meat), предварительно не выяснив, что это за мясо.
Записан

Aniezka

  • Участник
  • Оффлайн Оффлайн
  • Сообщений: 7
Записан

Aniezka

  • Участник
  • Оффлайн Оффлайн
  • Сообщений: 7

Ассаджи, подскажите, пожалуйста, как понимать последнюю фразу (из сутры): This will not do, O foolish one, for converting the unconverted?

Контекст: разговор Будды со съевшим человеческое мясо бхикку.
1) 9. Then the blessed Buddha rebuked him: 'How can you, O foolish one, eat meat without having enquired (what it is)? It is man's flesh, O foolish one, which you have eaten. This will not do, O foolish one, for converting the unconverted,'

У меня получается: [поедание человеческого мяса] не поможет обратить в веру необращенного.
Это правильно?

* * *

И еще такой вопрос. Складывается впечатление, что Будда что-то устанавливал тогда, когда кто-то к нему прибегал и жаловался. Например: люди были раздражены, что монахи ели мясо слонов - царских животных. Они пришли к Будде и нажаловались, и Тот запретил монахам есть мясо слонов. И так далее. История повторяется с каждым животным: приходят люди - жалуются - Будда говорит: ОК, это есть запрещаю.
Вопрос: место действия - Индия, где корова - священное животное. Неужели за все это время никто не пришел к Будде и не нажаловался, что монахи едят священных животных?
Записан

Ассаджи

  • Администратор
  • Участник
  • Онлайн Онлайн
  • Сообщений: 6610

Ассаджи, подскажите, пожалуйста, как понимать последнюю фразу (из сутры): This will not do, O foolish one, for converting the unconverted?

"Это не будет способствовать обращению не обращенных".

Цитировать
И еще такой вопрос. Складывается впечатление, что Будда что-то устанавливал тогда, когда кто-то к нему прибегал и жаловался. Например: люди были раздражены, что монахи ели мясо слонов - царских животных. Они пришли к Будде и нажаловались, и Тот запретил монахам есть мясо слонов. И так далее. История повторяется с каждым животным: приходят люди - жалуются - Будда говорит: ОК, это есть запрещаю.
Вопрос: место действия - Индия, где корова - священное животное. Неужели за все это время никто не пришел к Будде и не нажаловался, что монахи едят священных животных?

В Индии как ели, так и едят домашний скот, в том числе коров. Современный индуистский запрет на поедание говядины, возможно, развился постепенно, начавшись с запрета на принесения коров в жертву:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_cow

Как я понимаю по Вашей аватаре, у Вас особое отношение  к коровам.

Но представьте, приходит монах в бедную деревню. Крестьяне подают ему часть той скудной повседневной пищи, которой порой не хватает им самим. Что он, будет отказываться, и требовать чего-то другого?

А вот профессия мясника считается, согласно Восьмеричному пути, неверным способом добывания средств к существованию.
« Последнее редактирование: 04 Июль 2008 21:39 от Ассаджи »
Записан

Aniezka

  • Участник
  • Оффлайн Оффлайн
  • Сообщений: 7

"Это не будет способствовать обращению не обращенных".

Ассаджи, а Вы могли бы как-то эту фразу прокомментировать? Я не понимаю... почему он вдруг так сказал. Предполагалось, что монах, поедая человеческое мясо, обратит человека в буддизм?... создаст с ним кармическую связь?

Цитировать
Как я понимаю по Вашей аватаре, у Вас особое отношение  к коровам.

Вообще к животным :) Я та пресловутая буддистка-вегетарианка.)) Мне как-то дали ссылку на этот тред, как доказательство того, что Будда все-таки отравился свининой, а не трюфелями :) Впрочем, я с этим и не спорю... наверное, это вообще не очень важно.

Цитировать
Но представьте, приходит монах в бедную деревню. Крестьяне подают ему часть той скудной повседневной пищи, которой порой не хватает им самим. Что он, будет отказываться, и требовать чего-то другого?

В связи с этим еще такой вопрос... Да, монахи вроде бы не должны ничего требовать, они кушают то, что им дают. Дали мясо - надо скушать (главное, чтобы животное не было забито специально для монаха).
Зацепил еще этот отрывок:
At that time a certain Bhikkhu had taken a purgative. And that Bhikkhu said to Suppiyâ, the lay-devotee: 'I have taken a purgative, sister, and I want some broth 1.'

Т.е. он говорит: "Я принял слабительное, сестра, и я хочу мясную похлебку".

Мне это кажется тааак странно... Т.е. он хотел "закрепить" кишечник мясом? Обычно это делают с помощью риса. Как-то оригинально. Да, и данном случае, монах сам попросил мяса, а не просто взял, что дают.
Записан

Ассаджи

  • Администратор
  • Участник
  • Онлайн Онлайн
  • Сообщений: 6610

Ассаджи, а Вы могли бы как-то эту фразу прокомментировать? Я не понимаю... почему он вдруг так сказал. Предполагалось, что монах, поедая человеческое мясо, обратит человека в буддизм?... создаст с ним кармическую связь?

Будда, что интересно, заботился о том, какое мнение складывается в обществе о его последователях, и потому вводил правила в том числе и для создания положительного образа монахов.

Цитировать
At that time a certain Bhikkhu had taken a purgative. And that Bhikkhu said to Suppiyâ, the lay-devotee: 'I have taken a purgative, sister, and I want some broth 1.'

Т.е. он говорит: "Я принял слабительное, сестра, и я хочу мясную похлебку".

"Broth" - это суп, мясной отвар. Честно сказать, я не разбираюсь в лечебных свойствах супа, но слышал, что они есть. Это может быть, например, средством от истощения:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soup
Записан

Edwardb42

  • Участник
  • Оффлайн Оффлайн
  • Сообщений: 75

А разве из текста сутты можно с уверенностью сказать, что он именно отравился?
Записан

Ассаджи

  • Администратор
  • Участник
  • Онлайн Онлайн
  • Сообщений: 6610

На мой взгляд, представления о том, что он отравился, имеют отдаленное отношение к тексту сутты.
Записан
Теги: